Abstract

Experience governs neurogenesis from radial-glial neural stem cells (RGLs) in the adult hippocampus to support memory. Transcription factors in RGLs integrate physiological signals to dictate self-renewal division mode. Whereas asymmetric RGL divisions drive neurogenesis during favorable conditions, symmetric divisions prevent premature neurogenesis while amplifying RGLs to anticipate future neurogenic demands. The identities of transcription factors regulating RGL symmetric self-renewal, unlike those that regulate RGL asymmetric self-renewal, are not known. Here, we show in mice that the transcription factor Kruppel-like factor 9 (Klf9) is elevated in quiescent RGLs and inducible, deletion of Klf9 promotes RGL activation state. Clonal analysis and longitudinal intravital 2-photon imaging directly demonstrate that Klf9 functions as a brake on RGL symmetric self-renewal. In vivo translational profiling of RGLs lacking Klf9 generated a molecular blueprint for RGL symmetric self-renewal that was characterized by upregulation of genetic programs underlying Notch and mitogen signaling, cell-cycle, fatty acid oxidation and lipogenesis. Together, these observations identify Klf9 as a transcriptional regulator of neural stem cell expansion in the adult hippocampus.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE164889.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nannan Guo

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Kelsey D McDermott

    Dominick Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yu-Tzu Shih

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Haley Zanga

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Debolina Ghosh

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Charlotte Herber

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. William R Meara

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James H Coleman

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Alexia Zagouras

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0899-0910
  10. Lai Ping Wong

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Ruslan I Sadreyev

    Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. J Tiago Gonçalves

    Dominick Purpura Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Amar Sahay

    Center for Regenerative Medicine, Massachusetts, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    asahay@mgh.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0677-1693

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R56NS117529)

  • J Tiago Gonçalves

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R56NS117529)

  • Amar Sahay

NA

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animals were handled and experiments were conducted in accordance with procedures approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at the Massachusetts General Hospital (2011N000084 ) and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in accordance with NIH guidelines.

Copyright

© 2022, Guo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,861
    views
  • 544
    downloads
  • 24
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Nannan Guo
  2. Kelsey D McDermott
  3. Yu-Tzu Shih
  4. Haley Zanga
  5. Debolina Ghosh
  6. Charlotte Herber
  7. William R Meara
  8. James H Coleman
  9. Alexia Zagouras
  10. Lai Ping Wong
  11. Ruslan I Sadreyev
  12. J Tiago Gonçalves
  13. Amar Sahay
(2022)
Transcriptional regulation of neural stem cell expansion in adult hippocampus
eLife 11:e72195.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72195

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72195

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Christine Ahrends, Mark W Woolrich, Diego Vidaurre
    Tools and Resources

    Predicting an individual’s cognitive traits or clinical condition using brain signals is a central goal in modern neuroscience. This is commonly done using either structural aspects, such as structural connectivity or cortical thickness, or aggregated measures of brain activity that average over time. But these approaches are missing a central aspect of brain function: the unique ways in which an individual’s brain activity unfolds over time. One reason why these dynamic patterns are not usually considered is that they have to be described by complex, high-dimensional models; and it is unclear how best to use these models for prediction. We here propose an approach that describes dynamic functional connectivity and amplitude patterns using a Hidden Markov model (HMM) and combines it with the Fisher kernel, which can be used to predict individual traits. The Fisher kernel is constructed from the HMM in a mathematically principled manner, thereby preserving the structure of the underlying model. We show here, in fMRI data, that the HMM-Fisher kernel approach is accurate and reliable. We compare the Fisher kernel to other prediction methods, both time-varying and time-averaged functional connectivity-based models. Our approach leverages information about an individual’s time-varying amplitude and functional connectivity for prediction and has broad applications in cognitive neuroscience and personalised medicine.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jessica Royer, Valeria Kebets ... Boris C Bernhardt
    Research Article Updated

    Complex structural and functional changes occurring in typical and atypical development necessitate multidimensional approaches to better understand the risk of developing psychopathology. Here, we simultaneously examined structural and functional brain network patterns in relation to dimensions of psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) dataset. Several components were identified, recapitulating the psychopathology hierarchy, with the general psychopathology (p) factor explaining most covariance with multimodal imaging features, while the internalizing, externalizing, and neurodevelopmental dimensions were each associated with distinct morphological and functional connectivity signatures. Connectivity signatures associated with the p factor and neurodevelopmental dimensions followed the sensory-to-transmodal axis of cortical organization, which is related to the emergence of complex cognition and risk for psychopathology. Results were consistent in two separate data subsamples and robust to variations in analytical parameters. Although model parameters yielded statistically significant brain–behavior associations in unseen data, generalizability of the model was rather limited for all three latent components (r change from within- to out-of-sample statistics: LC1within = 0.36, LC1out = 0.03; LC2within = 0.34, LC2out = 0.05; LC3within = 0.35, LC3out = 0.07). Our findings help in better understanding biological mechanisms underpinning dimensions of psychopathology, and could provide brain-based vulnerability markers.